Reply
Regular Social Butterfly

California Law Mandates Diversity in Corporate Board of Directors

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/30/california-law-requires-racial-diversity-corporate-b...

 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law requiring publicly traded corporations headquartered in California to appoint directors from underrepresented communities to their boards, the first law in the country to dictate the racial make-up of corporate boards.  It was inspired by first-of-its-kind legislation in 2018 that requires publicly held corporations headquartered in the state to diversify their all-male boards. It has faced legal challenges from conservative groups.  “When we talk about racial justice, we talk about power and needing to have seats at the table,” the governor said during a press conference on Wednesday.

 

Nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd prompted pledges from corporate America to close the racial gap. Yet a recent study by USA TODAY found that less than 2% of top executives at the 50 largest companies are Black.  The new law represents a big step forward for racial equity,” one of the bill’s authors Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Democrat from Pasadena, said in a statement. “While some corporations were already leading the way to combat implicit bias, now, all of California’s corporate boards will better reflect the diversity of our state.”  Holden says research shows that public support for social justice often does not lead to lasting reforms needed to boost hiring and retention.  The legislation he co-authored would require people from “underrepresented communities” to have at least one seat on corporate boards in California by the end of 2021.

 

In 2022, boards with four to nine people must have at least two members from an underrepresented community and boards with nine or more people must have at least three. Companies that don’t comply could face stiff fines.  Underrepresented communities are defined as people who identify as Black, Latino, Native American, Asian American, Pacific Islander, native Hawaiian or native Alaskan. Companies can also appoint directors who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

 

The legislation did not draw significant opposition. No major groups were listed as opponents. Corporate attorney Keith Bishop testified against the bill, saying "it violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

 

Harmeet Dhillon, an attorney and founder and CEO of the Center for American Liberty, called the new law a tax on California corporations.  “From a civil rights perspective and a corporate governance perspective, we ought to be encouraging corporations to have the best and brightest directors and that is really a function of the constituents of the corporation which are the shareholders,” Dhillon said.  “For the state to impose that seems well beyond the state’s appropriate role,” she said. “I don’t know what the governor and his woke agenda have to do with shareholders’ interest. In fact, those are diametrically opposed in California.”

 

Decades after the Civil Rights movement led to laws banning workplace discrimination, progress in diversifying boardrooms and executive suites has stalled.  Of the 279 top executives at the nation’s 50 largest companies, only five, or 1.8%, were Black, including two who recently retired, the USA TODAY analysis found. Many of these corporations are still led by all-white executives in the top five slots – the CEO, the chief financial officer and three other top-paid executives.  An analysis released by the Latino Corporate Directors Association in July found that 87% of public companies headquartered in the state have no Latinos on their boards even though 39% of residents are Latino. Only 16% of the companies had at least one Black board member.  The 2018 law requiring corporations to add women to boards did not advantage women of color, with nearly 78% of the women appointed to these boards are white women, the association said.

 

Assemblymember Cristina Garcia, a Democrat from Bell Gardens, said California could no longer wait for corporations to take on that lack of diversity on their own.  “We need more diversity in corporate America,” she tweeted Wednesday. “Gov. Newsom’s signature helps bust open the door for many qualified folks.”

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Why isn't this called what it is, affirmative action?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#United_States

 

Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning public institutions, including public schools, from practicing affirmative action within their respective states.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
367 Views
18
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

I would point out that equality of outcome is not the goal of the law. It is equality of opportunity. 

0 Kudos
202 Views
3
Report
Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

I would point out that equality of outcome is not the goal of the law. It is equality of opportunity. 


Says who besides you?  Mandating quotas is not equality of opportunity.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
197 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

I would point out that equality of outcome is not the goal of the law. It is equality of opportunity. 


Says who besides you?  Mandating quotas is not equality of opportunity.

 


Sure looks like it to me.  Obviously the opportunities are skewed as whites and white males in particular are almost minorities in this country yet persons of color on BODs  are in the 2% range.  So, with almost half the population from which to choose, this should not be difficult. 

 

In a fair system, the percentage of participation would mirror the percentage in the population. Unless you feel they are inferior. 

0 Kudos
184 Views
1
Report
Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

I would point out that equality of outcome is not the goal of the law. It is equality of opportunity. 


Says who besides you?  Mandating quotas is not equality of opportunity.

 


Sure looks like it to me.  Obviously the opportunities are skewed as whites and white males in particular are almost minorities in this country yet persons of color on BODs  are in the 2% range.  So, with almost half the population from which to choose, this should not be difficult. 

 

In a fair system, the percentage of participation would mirror the percentage in the population. Unless you feel they are inferior. 


Wrong as always.  Inequity of outcome is often caused by inequity of interests.  Jordan Peterson gives many examples.  In particular, Scandinavian countries, which liberals fondly use as examples of successful socialism, show greater inequity of outcome because there is less inequity of opportunity.

 

 

 

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
169 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Generations of racist misogynist bigots have continued the effects of slavery by undermining the 13th, 14th and 19th Amendments. Those folks no control the Republican Party and constitute the vast majority of its base.

 

Their notion that redressing 150 years of injustice is somehow unjust is racist BS designed to advance White Male Supremacy and as a side effect allow the ignorant and willfully uninformed to control Governments with a minority of citizens supporting them.

 

Those who wish to end this travisty of Americanism must begin by getting rid of elected Republicans at all levels of Government. Now is a great time to start.

 

VOTE THEM OUT

THEN

LOCK THEM UP

Honored Social Butterfly

Well, it's not like they were doing it on their own.  

0 Kudos
371 Views
12
Report
Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

Well, it's not like they were doing it on their own.  


It's ridiculous to put a minority group with little or no stock holdings in a corporation on its board because that minority doesn't share the interests of the stock owners.  A more reasonable law would require that the percentage of a minority group on the board of directors be approximately equal to the percentage of stocks owned by that minority group.

 

 

You are getting sleepy.
Honored Social Butterfly

Just one more reason NOT to have your corporation headquarters in California!

 

Say no to Joe and BLM cult!

0 Kudos
225 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Are there exaggeration of facts here...are there groups being put on boards, or individuals representing groups. 

0 Kudos
204 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

Well, it's not like they were doing it on their own.  


It's ridiculous to put a minority group with little or no stock holdings in a corporation on its board because that minority doesn't share the interests of the stock owners.  A more reasonable law would require that the percentage of a minority group on the board of directors be approximately equal to the percentage of stocks owned by that minority group.

 

 


Kind of the same argument we used to hear about minorities moving into white jobs neighborhoods and schools. 

0 Kudos
374 Views
8
Report
Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

Well, it's not like they were doing it on their own.  


It's ridiculous to put a minority group with little or no stock holdings in a corporation on its board because that minority doesn't share the interests of the stock owners.  A more reasonable law would require that the percentage of a minority group on the board of directors be approximately equal to the percentage of stocks owned by that minority group.

 

 


Kind of the same argument we used to hear about minorities moving into white jobs neighborhoods and schools. 


Kind of shmind of.  Minorities always were free to buy stocks in a corporation to get control of that corporation.  That's not discrimination.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
367 Views
7
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:


Kind of shmind of.  Minorities always were free to buy stocks in a corporation to get control of that corporation.  That's not discrimination.

 


So, just coincidence there are only white men on these corporate boards? Like when it was just coincidence there were no black engineers at my first employer?

0 Kudos
349 Views
6
Report
Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:


Kind of shmind of.  Minorities always were free to buy stocks in a corporation to get control of that corporation.  That's not discrimination.

 


So, just coincidence there are only white men on these corporate boards? Like when it was just coincidence there were no black engineers at my first employer?


Not every corporation has only White men on its boards and, for those corporation that do, it is neither a coincidence nor discrimination.   The liberal belief that discrimination is the sole cause of inequity of outcome is a fallacy.  For example, the Black culture does not glorify engineering as much as the White culture does therefore a smaller percentage of Blacks are interested pursuing a career in engineering.

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
327 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:Not every corporation has only White men on its boards and, for those corporation that do, it is neither a coincidence nor discrimination.   The liberal belief that discrimination is the sole cause of inequity of outcome is a fallacy.  For example, the Black culture does not glorify engineering as much as the White culture does therefore a smaller percentage of Blacks are interested pursuing a career in engineering.

 


Ah. so it is a racial inferiority thing. No doubt the black culture glorifies tap dancers and drug dealers then.  It is not discrimination, it is inertia. You only have white board members so you only recruit white board members. After all, the inferior races just do not produce enough qualified candidates. 

Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:Not every corporation has only White men on its boards and, for those corporation that do, it is neither a coincidence nor discrimination.   The liberal belief that discrimination is the sole cause of inequity of outcome is a fallacy.  For example, the Black culture does not glorify engineering as much as the White culture does therefore a smaller percentage of Blacks are interested pursuing a career in engineering.

 


Ah. so it is a racial inferiority thing. No doubt the black culture glorifies tap dancers and drug dealers then.  It is not discrimination, it is inertia. You only have white board members so you only recruit white board members. After all, the inferior races just do not produce enough qualified candidates. 


No, it's not an "inferiority thing".  It's a matter of choice in values and individual values have no inherent right or wrong.  But, a set of values can be wrong when some of the values within the set lead to conflicting goals, as exemplified by the saying, "wanting to have your cake and eat it too".

 

Your evil attempt to put words in my mouth demonstrates why the far left is a greater evil than the far right.

 

 

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
284 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:Not every corporation has only White men on its boards and, for those corporation that do, it is neither a coincidence nor discrimination.   The liberal belief that discrimination is the sole cause of inequity of outcome is a fallacy.  For example, the Black culture does not glorify engineering as much as the White culture does therefore a smaller percentage of Blacks are interested pursuing a career in engineering.

 


Ah. so it is a racial inferiority thing. No doubt the black culture glorifies tap dancers and drug dealers then.  It is not discrimination, it is inertia. You only have white board members so you only recruit white board members. After all, the inferior races just do not produce enough qualified candidates. 


No, it's not an "inferiority thing".  It's a matter of choice in values and individual values have no inherent right or wrong.  But, a set of values can be wrong when some of the values within the set lead to conflicting goals, as exemplified by the saying, "wanting to have your cake and eat it too".

 

Your evil attempt to put words in my mouth demonstrates why the far left is a greater evil than the far right.

 

 

 


Because the far right just hangs blacks or advocates hanging blacks?  KKK, Neo Nazis....those are the far right. 

 

I keep going back to statistics. Statistically, it is impossible for ethnic groups which make up  over 40% of the America population to comprise only 2% of corporate board membership unless there is an outside influence.  You keep saying that blacks and other minorities just don't have the interest.  Funny how the argument always comes to racial stereotypes. 

 

We needed equal housing, affirmative action,  and school desegregation to get where we are today.  Now it starts with the boardrooms. 

Regular Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@aruzinsky wrote:Not every corporation has only White men on its boards and, for those corporation that do, it is neither a coincidence nor discrimination.   The liberal belief that discrimination is the sole cause of inequity of outcome is a fallacy.  For example, the Black culture does not glorify engineering as much as the White culture does therefore a smaller percentage of Blacks are interested pursuing a career in engineering.

 


Ah. so it is a racial inferiority thing. No doubt the black culture glorifies tap dancers and drug dealers then.  It is not discrimination, it is inertia. You only have white board members so you only recruit white board members. After all, the inferior races just do not produce enough qualified candidates. 


No, it's not an "inferiority thing".  It's a matter of choice in values and individual values have no inherent right or wrong.  But, a set of values can be wrong when some of the values within the set lead to conflicting goals, as exemplified by the saying, "wanting to have your cake and eat it too".

 

Your evil attempt to put words in my mouth demonstrates why the far left is a greater evil than the far right.

 

 

 


Because the far right just hangs blacks or advocates hanging blacks?  KKK, Neo Nazis....those are the far right. 

 

I keep going back to statistics. Statistically, it is impossible for ethnic groups which make up  over 40% of the America population to comprise only 2% of corporate board membership unless there is an outside influence.  You keep saying that blacks and other minorities just don't have the interest.  Funny how the argument always comes to racial stereotypes. 

 

We needed equal housing, affirmative action,  and school desegregation to get where we are today.  Now it starts with the boardrooms. 


 

 

You are getting sleepy.
0 Kudos
270 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

richva wrote: Ah. so it is a racial inferiority thing. No doubt the black culture glorifies tap dancers and drug dealers then.  It is not discrimination, it is inertia. You only have white board members so you only recruit white board members. After all, the inferior races just do not produce enough qualified candidates. 

 

Fact is "affirmative action" has been practiced by the GOPerLords for generations. Only difference is they promote and reward each other's offspring without any consideration of ability or aptitude. Ask yourself if you know ANY rich kid from your school days who is not now also rich with a really good job despite having been barely able to pass his classes?

 

It's got nothing to do with penalizing white people as the Republicans want you to believe. Its all about righting centuries of wrong.

 

Opposing Affirmative Action is just like expecting the Uberrich to dribble their wealth down on the rest of us IF ONLY we cut their taxes AGAIN. It denies reality and perpetuates the redistribution of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1% which is just another form of economic slavery. The only reason unqualified people have been advanced in the past using the excuse of "affirmative action" is the bigots who gave the promotions did so knowing it would show the World the ones being promoted DID NOT DESERVE IT. Clarence Thomas is a perfect example - He spoke not a word for decades on the bench and had a 5cent sticker on his law degree telling people Affirmative Action had reduced its value to a nickle. Just the thing to replace a Titan in the fight for racial equality, Thurgood Marshall, while eliminating the "need" to appoint another black to SCOTUS - another "mission accomplished" for the GOPerLords.

 

There are plenty of QUALIFIED people who will benefit from Affirmative Action if it remains the law of the land so decent employers will be encouraged to help redress an ancient evil by advancing QUALIFIED minorities.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png